But you said in your post above there was no difference between the disclosure for a bond and disclosure involved in doing an IPO. And yet now you are admitting there is a difference?

are you illiterate? Apparently so. What I said was this:

wherever you got that from doesn't understand what went into the prospectus. What was disclosed including past years financials, reserves etc was precisely what is included in an IPO. There is nothing missing there. The only difference is for ongoing continuous disclosure which they will not have to do (as yet) because the bond was not issued on a US market. When they get around to an IPO they will be subject to continuous disclosure no matter where they decide to list.

What that means is the information you get from an IPO prospectus is exactly what you would get from the Bond prospectus. The difference (as I carefully pointed out) is in terms of continuous disclosure after the IPO is finished and the company is listed and after the Bond sale is completed.

Were you lying or just displaying your usual ignorance when you claimed the level of disclosure was the same for an IPO and a bond?

Look moron, read what I wrote before putting words in my mouth.

Anyway, the bottom line is I am right again. As I've explained to you multiple times now, the level of disclosure required for a bond is not as great as that required for the completion of an IPO.

Again you are apparently completely illiterate. IPO means intial public offering, all that is required for that is the prospectus which contains the same disclosure items to the same depth as Aramco disclosed in their Bond prospectus. They both serve the same purpose ...i.e. informing the investor of all the relevant information so they can make an investment decision. After the IPO is completed the company is publically listed and as a public company they have continuous disclosure provisions. This has nothing to do with completing an IPO but applies after that has been done to public companies. The two are unrelated.

As the CEO of Aramco has said now that they have completed all the work for disclosure related to the Bond prospectus they have the needed information to proceed with an IPO after the finances are updated to include the SABIC portion and the Bond cashflow items.

IPO means intial public offering, all that is required for that is the prospectus which contains the same disclosure items to the same depth as Aramco disclosed in their Bond prospectus.

You are such a thickie.

For the fourth time, a prospectus is not all that is required. The responsibility of the company doesn't end with issuing a prospectus. It is only the start of the process of going public.

Please consider how a bond is different from a company going public through an IPO.

The prospectus for the IPO, if ARAMCO ever does it, will have to be reviewed by the stock exchange---something that hasn't happened yet. Saudi Aramco will have to sign legal documents agreeing to comply with the rules of the stock exchange---something that hasn't happened yet. And Saudi Aramco will have to commit to being fully transparent with their financial status in the future...something else that hasn't happened yet.

There are no such obligations involved with issuing a prospectus for a bond. The company promises to pay interest on the bond....and thats it. Investors then review the prospectus and decide whether or not to invest. There is no stock exchange approval involved and no legal commitments to future disclosures of financial information.

Once a company goes through the IPO process and issues shares and becomes public, it is then required to comply with the rules of the exchange on which its stock is listed. These requirements also include issuing fully audited quarterly and annual reports on the companies financial status and assets to the public.

A bond has no such requirements.

Do you get it now? They are not identical processes, and they do not encumber Saudi Aramco will identical reporting reporting requirements into the future. That means the prospectuses cannot be identical. A bond prospectus will commit Saudi Aramco to pay interest on a bond---and thats it. An IPO prospectus, if it ever happens, will involve much different commitments, including issuing shares of stock, and hence will have to be written differently to reflect the different requirements.

I would think that would be obvious for most people, but I understand you are a bit of a thickie.

So go ahead and ask your next question, and I'll try to answer it. Or, as is more likely, ask the same question over and over again. I think next time will by your sixth time asking the same question. Oh well, patience is a virtue they say. Sigh.

I always try to be patient with those who are a little bit slow, so please pardon me if I don't have the patience of Job in dealing with your endless repetition of the same question.

For the fourth time, a prospectus is not all that is required. The responsibility of the company doesn't end with issuing a prospectus. It is only the start of the process of going public.

Please consider how a bond is different from a company going public through an IPO.

jesus wept..I just explained to you how the two are different and now you are going to play turn about and present it as your own idea? What kind of fools do you take us all for here? Have you ever done an IPO? Have you ever been involved in a bond issue? I know the answer is no. I have, and what I wrote is based on that knowledge.

Your whole post just repeats almost exactly what I said the difference was. Exactly how does that make you look smart? Answer is it doesn't. Every time you post something here it just makes you look less informed and more moronic. It would be funny if not sad.

As I said from the very beginning, the IPO disclosure and the bond issuance disclosures related to the prospectus are the same. The IPO stops the minute the company is listed. The disclosure related to the IPO has nothing to do with the disclosure required of a public company. Its no different that a private club having certain requirements for you to join but once you are in all that matters is what is required of a member. I've repeated this relationship up thread a couple of times and now you try to point it out as if it's your idea?

The disclosure issue with regards to a public company versus a non-public company simply comes into the category of pros and cons for going public. It has nothing to do with the initial disclosure that is required ......do you understand that little point?

When a company is deciding whether to go public they look at the advantages such as access to large capital, equity event for exisiting private shareholders, etc and they look at the cons such as loss of overall control, and the need for continuous disclousure. Continuous disclosure is not the same thing as disclosure required under the terms of an IPO prospectus or a bond prospectus. It does include annual and in some jurisdictions quarterly release of financials but it is mainly all to do with making press releases about material events (i.e. events that can impact a minimum of 10% of the corporation's bottom line). Unlike in the prospectus a full audit of reserves is not required and the corporation usually only has to audit annually (not quarterly) 10% of their reserves in a rolling fashion. Aramco might not want the pain associated with continuous ongoing disclosure but they will almost certainly want the money associated with an IPO which they will not "get" through bond issuance given a bond must be redeemed. Again it is pros and cons about being public, nothing to do with the intial disclosure associated with doing an IPO or issuing a bond which are essentially the same.

Once a company goes through the IPO process and issues shares and becomes public, it is then required to comply with the rules of the exchange on which its stock is listed. These requirements also include issuing fully audited quarterly and annual reports on the companies financial status and assets to the public.

A bond has no such requirements.he continuous disclosure associated with a corporation

this sums up what you don't understand. The requirements for an IPO and the requirements for a bond in terms of disclosure are the same. What Aramco put in their bond prospectus in terms of disclosure is precisely what you would see in a prospectus for an IPO. The ongoing continuous disclosure of a public company is not related to the disclosure required to complete the IPO. It is completely different. Suggesting that Aramco would be worried about doing an IPO because they are worried about the disclosure associated with issuing an IPO is basically a stupid comment now given they have already released everything.

I always try to be patient with those who are a little bit slow, so please pardon me if I don't have the patience of Job in dealing with your endless repetition of the same question.

It is always astounding to me how someone who behaves like a teenager on a forum and basically has zero knowledge about the subject matter can feel comfortable about taking a smug "holier than thou" position. Basically, you are an uneducated as far as oil and gas knowledge is concerned, you have shown this time and again. You read things into press releases that aren't there, you don't bother to read what other posters write and once you have said something incredibly stupid you pretend you didn't and somehow think nobody notices. Perhaps you should consider an occupation in politics, there a double digit IQ will get you a long way.

Industry discourse suggests that the Permian Basin is powering U.S. shale oil and gas output. In fact, the hydrocarbon rich basin between western Texas and southeastern New Mexico is rarely out of energy market chatter these days.According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Permian may experience the biggest boost in production levels in the entire country. It is forecast to climb by 42,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 4.136 million bpd in May.There is little reason to doubt that projection, according to Matt Johnson, National Account Manager at Frac spread count specialists Primary Vision. "The basin has seen a steady increase in activity for almost two straight months. It has recovered nicely since January by about ~30 spreads. So from an activity standpoint (i.e. completions, frac jobs and active frac fleets/spreads) as we move out of winter, things are looking pretty good."The bump in activity follows trends seen in recent years, going by Primary Vision data. "In three of the past four years in which we have examined the Permian, activity rose in 2015, 2017 and 2018 in the months after winter roughly from February to July. The current year looks likely to follow that path," Johnson adds. That means more Permian oil and gas is coming onstream. In 2018, the basin accounted for 20% of the total U.S. oil production and at the same time accounted for 7% of the country's dry natural gas. Getting the maximum bang for bucks spent on the latter is what is once again worrying exploration and production (E&P) companies.

careinke wrote:Is anybody besides Plant and Roc still reading his thread? I must be a masochist to still be here.

I'm reading. There's really only a few posters here who have a smart and objective view of the landscape. Everyone else is just pushing an ideological and/or paranoid agenda, trolling for attention, or servicing a messianic/nostradamus complex.

HALL OF SHAME:-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.

careinke wrote:Is anybody besides Plant and Roc still reading his thread? I must be a masochist to still be here.

Nah, every thread where these two decided calling each other names is the best use of their time I just skip right over each of their posts until I find one like yours, worth reading. These two play the same game in several threads, here, the IPO thread and a couple of the climate change threads. Essentially its one person saying 'mom he touched me' and the other one say 'he started it!" going round and round in circles like to young brothers with nothing else worth saying.

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Rystad made a forecast on US tight oil production. The only basin that have some potential is the permian from their perspective. They anyway predict a huge increase of 5 Mb/d until 2030, which would be an average increase of 500kb/d each year.

Quite a different picture from the one of the first post of this thread:

Whatever happens, production won't anyway ever look like what Rystad forecasted. LTO production react strongly to prices as the 2015 downturn showed and, as I guess, what we are about to see in the short term. I'm quite convinced that we will see US production being almost flat in 2020, unless prices take an upward trend soon, which is more and more doubtful.

But that won't necessary mean also that US LTO is dead. As 2017-2018 proved with the second LTO boom (which amplitude was unexpected from my POV at the start of this thread). If Rystad are correct in their assumption of permian potential, a third LTO is quite possible later in the 2020's when prices raise enough.

Whatever happens, production won't anyway ever look like what Rystad forecasted. LTO production react strongly to prices as the 2015 downturn showed and, as I guess, what we are about to see in the short term. I'm quite convinced that we will see US production being almost flat in 2020, unless prices take an upward trend soon, which is more and more doubtful.

But that won't necessary mean also that US LTO is dead. As 2017-2018 proved with the second LTO boom (which amplitude was unexpected from my POV at the start of this thread). If Rystad are correct in their assumption of permian potential, a third LTO is quite possible later in the 2020's when prices raise enough.

The Rystad forecast is based on assumed strong pricing which is looking increasingly difficult to obtain unless OPEC+ decides to decrease production. Rystad's forecast did suggest that:

However, if the U.S. benchmark for oil falls to closer to $45 per barrel in the years ahead - as opposed to $55 - than shale oil output could peak at a more modest 11.5 million barrels per day, Rystad said, much lower than its estimate of 14.5 million barrels.

The increased production capacity is based on the view that technology will improve which would result in higher recovery factors across the board. Based on past history that is entirely possible but does need a good view to strong future commodity pricing as incentive. That means not just oil price but natural gas as well given that best recovery comes from either very high GOR oil or gas with high liquid contents.

Seems like it provides plenty of time for EVs to catch hold and start to chip away at demand.

I agree entirely, something I have been saying here for the last decade. There needs to be more incentives to move towards EV's and a lot more research and development directed towards batteries and storage. Identifying the key issues that get in the way of complete acceptance (expense, battery life, all wheel drive capability etc) will help immensely. I'm convinced that along with some nuclear, wind, water etc from the renewable side of things that we could have a much more sustainable system in the not too distant future.

Mind you the virtue-signaling warriors here are more interested in attending strikes to support a 16 year old's incredibly learned view of climate change ....a tactic whereby they can blame everyone else for problems that haven't arrived yet and expect everyone else except themselves to solve the problems.

"The increased production capacity is based on the view that technology will improve which would result in higher recovery factors across the board."

I haven't read this in their press release, where did you read this? Also, something I don't understand is the meaning of "risked drilling locations".

And I don't take their forecast as an accurate view on LTO. Rystad sell their energy analysis to people, and these press releases are mainly there to promote the other products they sell. I was just putting this here to know what others think of it.

rockdoc123 wrote:Mind you the virtue-signaling warriors here are more interested in attending strikes to support a 16 year old's incredibly learned view of climate change ....a tactic whereby they can blame everyone else for problems that haven't arrived yet and expect everyone else except themselves to solve the problems.

Well said. I have no illusions that green tech will "save us", but at the same time, I think the invisible hand of the market has a way of extending BAU far more than doomers ever thought it would. The invisible hand has been both responsible for brown tech (fracking) and bright green tech (LED lightbulbs and EVs). The end result is we're going to get more mileage out of the fossil fuels we have left.

I really think by the end of the 2020s that EVs will have become a truly mainstream consumer choice ato the point where buyers associate ICEs as dead-man-walking technology. The only wildcard will be battery supplies. I know that won't eliminate the truly immense number of existing gas cars on the road, but it will still start to meaningfully decrease oil demand. If somewhere in the next five years fracking collapses and oil prices spike it will only hasten the existing transition. The technology is already proven and charging infrastructure is on the way.

HALL OF SHAME:-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.

Also, something I don't understand is the meaning of "risked drilling locations".

First they estimate averge EOR/well, take number of locations and then multiply by the chance of success.As an example if I have an EOR/well of say 400 Kbbl, an average IP of 350 bopd, 500 locations and have estimated the chance of an individual well being successful as 85% then the risked reserves are 400 *500*.85 and the risked production in the first year is (350*365)*500*.85